People v. Compton

38 A.D.2d 788, 328 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 788 (People v. Compton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Compton, 38 A.D.2d 788, 328 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Erie Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender on September 22, 1970 and sentenced to probation for a term of five years. On June 21, 1971 he was again adjudicated a youthful offender and placed on probation. An information was then filed by the Probation Department charging that the second adjudication as a youthful offender violated the terms and conditions of defendant’s probation on the first youthful offender adjudication. A hearing was held, and the court upon receiving proof that defendant had pleaded guilty to being a youthful offender, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to the custody of the Department of Correction for placement in a reformatory. The commission of a crime is sufficient grounds for the revocation of probation. (People v. Moffre, 34 A D 2d 703.) While an adjudication as a youthful offender is not a conviction, a plea of guilty constitutes an admission that a defendant committed an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult. (People v. Dwight S., 29 N Y 2d 172.) However, no proof was taken as to the underlying act that defendant was charged with committing. A new hearing should be held at which proof should be taken to determine whether defendant committed any act which violated the terms and conditions of his probation and justified its revocation. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County revoking probation.) Present■—Del Veechio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Francis
137 A.D.3d 91 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Campbell
98 A.D.3d 5 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Irving
45 A.D.3d 1389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Hernandez
7 Misc. 3d 151 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
People v. Bryant
184 Misc. 2d 513 (New York County Courts, 2000)
People v. Vite-Acosta
184 Misc. 2d 206 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Terrance Matthews
205 F.3d 544 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Farmland Dairies v. Barber
103 A.D.2d 11 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
United States Ex Rel. Spero v. Wenzel
397 F. Supp. 597 (E.D. New York, 1975)
State v. Roberson
327 A.2d 556 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.2d 788, 328 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-compton-nyappdiv-1972.